Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many more sources available

[edit]

John Cummings (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/gaza-israel-agriculture-food-fisheries/ Levivich (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
IDF Bulldozer clearing trees in Gaza in 2023
IDF Bulldozer clearing trees in Gaza in 2023
Created by John Cummings (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

John Cummings (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Reopening per talk.--Launchballer 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Launchballer, just FYI to whoever reviews this, I've addressed the maintainance tags and done a QPQ with Template:Did you know nominations/KDCD-TV. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks BlueMoonset, to the person reviewing it, please ping me with any questions :) John Cummings (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi evrik thank you for looking at the article, I realise it is an emotive subject. I believe the intro to be a fair summary of the events and have used the same descriptors for the events as the sources, especially the academic study to try to make the article as accurate as possible. However there are limited sources available given the blockade and ban on journalists entering. I can't find any sources which despute that the destruction has happened or who destroyed the farms and trees. There are some more sources to go through but they mainly focus on the health impacts of the destruction. I've included the only quote I can find from the Israeli government in the body of the article. Can you tell me which words/phrases specifically you think are not balanced and how you would go about changing it? John Cummings (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited two items in the article. It looks like the suggestions made here have been implemented and the article is as neutral as it can be. The article has the correct inline citations and it is both long enough and new enough to qualify for dyk. The hook is confirmed, in the article, and interesting. I prefer ALT0 as it introduces the word ecocide which is the subject of the article. The nominator has done a qpq. Regarding the stability of the article - it appears mostly -stable, just the nominator and myself have edited it today. Earwig has been down for me today so I have spot checked sources and did not find evidence of plagiarism. Bruxton (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton thanks very much for assessing it and for your additions to the article. John Cummings (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hook @Rjjiii: it works and it confirmed with the sources. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton honestly I really dislike this solution, all the sources are very clear on the source of the vast vast majority of the destruction which is Israeli forces using bulldozers and bombs. It currently reads as passive voice with no information on who is doing the destruction. I understand the number of bombs has been taken issue with, my strong preference is:

... that Israel's systematic destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and bombs has been described as an ecocide? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WT:DYK, that hook is not supported by the source. CMD (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that WP:DYKHOOK says The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change. Hooks that talk about a specific number of trees destroyed in an ongoing conflict can't possibly meet that requirement. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith thanks for explaining this, the fact Israeli forces destroyed them and that they have been accused of ecocide I think both meet that requirement. 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, to take each part of the sentence and quote from the source in "s:

  • that Israel's : " Israel’s onslaught on Gaza’s ecosystems has made the area unlivable" and "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land"
  • systematic : "Samaneh Moafi, FA’s assistant director of research, describes the destruction as systematic." and "The effects of this systematic agricultural destruction"
  • destruction of 38–48% of trees and farmland in Gaza : " shows the destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland"
  • using bulldozers and bombs : "farmland destroyed by bombs and bulldozers"
  • has been described as an ecocide? : "led to calls for it to be regarded as “ecocide” and investigated as a possible war crime"

One related question, is it possible to use a second link in the hook to further provide sources? I feel like this is is sufficient but others also state facts to back up the statement as well.

John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual points may all be sourced, but they should not be synthed together to say something else. CMD (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks, can I check that you agree that all the invidvidual facts are supported by the source now? Could you describe what you think is synthesised? And what is "something else"? I feel like this sentence is an accurate summary of the facts. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put details in the discussion at WT:DYK which I would ask you to refer to, but in general if your hook is trying to connect five different points it is unlikely to be accurate. Another example, not covered by WT:DYK, is you are claiming all 38-48% (not a small range) of the destruction is due to systematic bulldozing and bombing, while in actuality that is the total destruction caused by all actors and actions in the war. CMD (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis thanks for your reply, its got a bit difficult to keep track of everything when its spread across two pages. Can you say which part you think is unaccurate taking these 5 facts from the source? I know that there is some wood taken for firewood, however this and the other sources are clear, the vast vast majority of the trees have been destroyed by Israeli military "satellite data that Israeli military activity had destroyed more than 65 sq km, or 38% of that land". Would you be happy if the phrase was changed to 'more than 38% of trees and farmland' rather than '38% - 48%'? This would make it a direct quote from the source. My understanding of the % range in the information is simply that no one is allowed to enter Gaza to measure the destruction so the researchers made their study through remote sensing and that the amount of trees used for firewood is negligable and includes trees already felled by Israeli military. John Cummings (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The synthing together of the five facts is the issue, not the individual facts. I suggest picking one in particular, and making a hook about that (although not the bombs and bulldozers one, that's mostly a dramatic turn of phrase, especially as we know they also used tanks). Looking at the article, 38% and 48% are actually separate points, 38% is from a study of farmland, 48% is specifically tree cover, two distinct albeit overlapping measurements. CMD (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for your reply, I'm unsure how I could use only one of the facts and make it a full sentence. Thanks for the suggestions about separating the tree destruction and farmland destruction and catching the use of tanks, I've integrated that into a new Alt. John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I am not approving any percentages in any hook. This is an ongoing war, and those figures will date, if they haven't already done so. I would also expect a prepbuilder to WP:DYKTRIM it anyway. If you're alright with the shortened ALT3a:
ALT3a: ... that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?
I will approve that.--Launchballer 21:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer I understand your concern about the percentages, can you tell me what you feel the issue is with the other part you removed 'using tanks, bulldozers and bombs'? I'm not aware of a rule that would suggest this should be excluded. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKTRIM, plus I don't see the word 'bulldozers' in the article. (I see the word 'bulldozed', but it doesn't have an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer, thank you very much for the explanation and link. Honestly I think that the method of destruction is important conext for people to understand what is happening. I've fixed the article to explicitly say bulldozers, several new refs have become available in the last weeks. The sentence "that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza using tanks, bulldozers, bombs and herbicides has been described as an ecocide?" fits below the 150-160 recommended max. I'm ok with going with the shorter version if that is the only version that will be accepted but I think it misses really important context on the varied methods used to achieve the systematic destruction. Thanks again for your help, John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it does now check out, so it's fine by me. I can tell you that WP:CLUMPs of references are discouraged, and one of them (the Famine section) would deserve {{clump}}. I also notice that that section is a single-sentence paragraph, which is discouraged per WP:PARAGRAPH.--Launchballer 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about multiple references. The point of a reference is to let the user verify a statement. If you give one good source for that, it's easy for the reader to do that. If you give them a list of sources, all you do is make the reader's job harder because they have to go look in all of them until they find the one that supports the statement. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer thank you vey much, I've also suggested an image. John Cummings (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which checks out, however I can't approve an article deserving that template. Please remedy it before I can approve it.--Launchballer 14:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer, great :) I've been through and unclumped that section and other sections I can find with more than 2 refs for a statement. I hope this meets the rules now, sorry its been so much back and forth. John Cummings (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fine.--Launchballer 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offering 2 hooks based on [1] & [2]. @John Cummings: I think the front page hook is more appropriate with limited information "on who is doing the destruction". Readers can click into the article where context is available. If you disagree, I'll strike this and my previous suggestion. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Crossed out hooks objected to by nominator. 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assess them when I get back from shopping, but straight away, WP:ANADOLU Agency is in red for controversial topics at WP:RSP, and so I won't accept a hook based on that source.--Launchballer 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I was unfamiliar with the source and saw it used in the article. I've removed "herbicide" from the proposed hook. WP:ANADOLU seems to be the only source for herbicide usage cited in the article right now. I'm not French, but the video cited near herbicide seems to be talking about bombing. Rjjiii (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Launchballer thanks very much for catching this source I missed. Rjjiii I appreciate your suggestions, my issue with reducing the hook is it misses out vital context, e.g '3b' misses out that multiple sources have called it an ecocide, also it misses out who is doing it and how. '3c' misses who is doing it and that it is so huge in scale it is being called an ecocide. John Cummings (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could WP:FORBESCON and WP:ANADOLU and their relevant passages be removed/recited? I'm very sorry I didn't spot them earlier.--Launchballer 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer yep, fixed, I just found better refs for the statements :) John Cummings (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's try this again. I do note that there is another "Israel did bad" hook in prep 3 and there's another one ahead of this at Approved, so perhaps this should wait until the next one's been queued.--Launchballer 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli/ IDF POV

[edit]

John Cummings, could you mention the Israeli/ IDF POV in the article, as the Guardian article does? I can't see any mention of it at present. The DYK reviewer will need to check that the article has a NPOV. TSventon (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, thanks, I added a sentence. John Cummings (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

[edit]

In case it's useful, the World Bank has [3] that up to the end of January the conflict had caused more than US$400 million worth of damage to Gaza's environment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename

[edit]

I propose this be renamed to Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war. There's no need to say "in the Gaza Strip" in the title; that's where the war is, so it's obvious that's where the damage is. Also, this would be more in line with other existing titles such as

RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and I think there should be a WP:RM so we can attract more community input.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an "RM BEFORE" source analysis is called for to see what scopes/titles are supported by RSes. Levivich (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent you are certainly welcome to open a RM discussion if you wish. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is a better title Zanahary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

The lede is misleading and biased to say the least. What Egyptian-Israeli blockade during the current war? Whose bombing is it? Israeli-cited study claiming there is too much food entering the Gaza Strip? Israel blaming Hamas for the famine despite international condemnation of its starvation policy? Why pollution of Israeli beaches rather than the destruction a third of the strip's green cover? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss much of the content you are concerned about was added here on 26 May. TSventon (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, explains, since it is impossible than no one challenged this framing before. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There was strong consensus to move away from the current title, which included the word 'damage'. There was rough consensus to move to the proposed title with the word 'impact'. Supporters focused on consistency with other articles, and noted it was more concise, kept the scope open and believed it was more neutral. There was some opposition to moving to the proposed title, not because those editors liked the current title, but wanted the word 'ecocide' or a reference to the invasion of Gaza. There were concerns from other editors that these alternatives were not neutral.

Thanks to everyone for contributing, (non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental damage caused by the Israel–Hamas war → Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war – As noted in #Suggested rename above, there is well-established precedent for naming these types of articles Environmental impact of .... This is a more neutral description than Environmental damage of ..., as required by WP:NDESC. @Vice regent @Amakuru @Launchballer @Bruxton @Schwede66 @Lightburst @SafariScribe all of whom were involved in previous discussons of this topic. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as article titles should be neutral.
Schwede66 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing non-neutral about using the word "damage".VR (Please ping on reply) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more definitive. Per move rationale. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked our article. I see that 8 of the 21 sources in our article say mention that Israel caused the environmental damage in their titles. The others say things in their text like: "Due to the Israeli occupation, all aspects of life and the environment in Gaza have been heavily damaged".
  1. "No Traces of Life, Israel's Ecocide", "Israeli attacks have decimated 70 percent of northern Gaza's water wells"
  2. "Ecocide in Gaza: The environmental impact of Israel's war"
  3. "Report: Deliberate Ecocide a Key Element of Israel's Genocidal Campaign in Gaza"
  4. "The staggering carbon footprint of Israel's war in Gaza"
  5. "'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime?".
  6. "Ecocide in Gaza: Who will hear and heal its dying environment?"
  7. "Widespread destruction in Gaza puts concept of 'domicide' in focus". (Domicide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a living environment)
  8. "Gaza : Israël accusée de commettre un écocide environnemental"
I note that we have no issue with saying Russia caused environmental damage in these articles,
  1. Environmental impact of the Russian occupation of Crimea
  2. Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
But we are more cautious with a title about causation involving the United States
  1. Environmental impact of the Vietnam War
  2. Environmental impact of the Gulf wars.
So after saying all of that, the suggested title change works if we want to mirror the way we treat the United States in our article titles about the impact of their actions. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: based on the above, would you be ok with the "Gaza ecocide" as a title? All the sources you cited above have "ecocide" (or "domicide") in their title.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent I see it as an editorial choice and it feels like charged language. I think we should call out who destroyed the environment in Gaza the same way we do with the Russia hooks. Something like Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or to Levivich's point Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip is probably more accurate. Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of Gaza ecocide, which is what I think this is called by RS. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think "impact" is less neutral than "damage." "Impact" strikes me as whitewashing... an "impact" can be positive, but this is definitely not positive. The impact on the environment is that the environment is damaged. Also, in other wars, say WWI or WWII, the environmental damage is caused by both sides in the war. Here, not so. So "caused by the Israel-Hamas war" or "of the Israel-Hamas war" again strikes me as whitewashing. Further, in other wars, the environmental damage caused by a belligerent is typically a side-effect of, e.g. bombing stuff. But here, not so: in this case, we're talking about a belligerent doing things like bringing in bulldozers to bulldoze agriculture. This isn't just damage caused by bombs, it's the intentional destruction of agriculture/ecosystem/environment. In other words, it's ecocide. Finally, all the environmental damage, AFAIK, is in Gaza, not in Israel, not anywhere else. So, "Gaza ecocide." In addition to being WP:CONCISE, it's also the most WP:PRECISE title even if it weren't the WP:COMMONNAME (although I think a source analysis would reveal it's the common name). Levivich (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favor of Gaza ecocide. Other acceptable alternatives are Environmental impact/damage of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip or Environmental impact/damage on the Gaza Strip of the Israel–Hamas war. The current article exclusively discusses the environmental impact on the Gaza Strip, and not the environmental impact anywhere else. Naming the article what its content is not about is a violation of WP:COATRACK. The topic of environmental impact in Gaza is a topic that is notable alone in its own right, so there's no reason it needs to be lumped with other topics.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. Passive voice: using the word 'damage' is putting the description into the passive voice, which is a common problem with many sources in the conflict and misleading. I'd suggest the other articles which use this word suffer from this same passive voice issue, also I'd note that passive voice and being neutral are not the same thing.
  2. Alternatives: I suggest the current title isn't great because it doesn't say where the damage is happening making it confusing for the reader. I would agree with Lightburst and others above that Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip would be most accurate, I'd also suggest Environmental destruction caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip since the damage is so severe, it describes the what, where and why of the situation.
  3. Ecocide: I understand the idea behind the use of the word ecocide (being the person who wrote most of the ecocide article), however I want to point out that ecocide is mostly legal definition, e.g the International Criminal Court has a crime specifically for ecocide during war, also the EU, Ukraine and a few others have it as a national crime. I would also suggest using a technical term like ecocide will make the article harder to find but I appreciate the editor who made the redirect for it.
Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency and neutrality, with impact allowing for changes which are not unambiguously damaging to be included. Strongest possible opposition to any use of Gaza Ecocide as a highly NPOV title not sufficiently supported by RS. FortunateSons (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the rest of the title is fine, strongest possible opposition to moving it to invasion, it should focus on the larger scope and not be merely restricted to the invasion of Gaza. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "impact" is a broader concept than "damage", which is again broader than "ecocide". It makes sense given this is a developing real-world topic as well as a developing short article to keep this as a broad topic, and to spin out new items when and if that will aid the understanding of the reader. CMD (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: would you be also open to the title of Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip? VR (Please ping on reply) 05:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent seems a bit POV to me 48JCL 12:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL can you explain? We have the article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023-present), so why would it be POV to have Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
After all, we also have Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Environmental impact of the Russian occupation of Crimea, which correspond to Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian occupation of Crimea.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: relisting after a discussion with Vice regent at User_talk:Robertsky#RM. – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As a follow up on that, I want to summarize my points here.
Support per above. xq 00:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, supporting either Gaza ecocide or Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza as more descriptive terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support some sort of move. The current title is rather euphemistic at this point – it reads like the environmental impact at work here is mild and of the academic variety, like an increase in groundwater acidity, or a decrease in the diversity of nematodes. What we are actually talking about is Ecocide and urbacide in the bombing and invasion of the Gaza Strip. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 would Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza be acceptable to you, though perhaps not ideal?VR (Please ping on reply) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anything is an improvement. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title is reasonably neutral, not really a WP:POVNAME, but "impact" is more WP:CONCISE, consistent, and encyclopedic. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources also are likely to discuss impacts and results without specifying them as “damage”—limiting this article’s scope like this will only lead to problematic editorial decisions and disputes, and in any case there’s no reason to do it. Impact is better. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky nobody has commented here in two weeks. Could you re-close this? RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith would you be also open to the title of Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip? That would be WP:CONSISTENT with the other articles you mentioned. It would have a narrower scope, which is appropriate in this case, as this article is absolutely not about other theatres of the Israel-Hamas war (like the October 7 attacks, or the Israel-Hezbollah conflict). Whether that title includes "2023-present" should depend on the outcome of this RM. There is a strong case to be made that the Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion alone is so historically significant that it deserves a stand-alone article.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main point when I proposed this was that it should start with "Environmental impact of...", so I'm OK with your suggestion. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm totally neutral on what comes after the "...". If somebody were to propose "Environmental impact of something VR did not like", I'd probably be OK with that too. RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Logical consistency with other articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

White Phosphorus

[edit]

The paragraph about WP cites 2 sources - the first one does reference any environmental damage, the 2nd one does not even mention Gaza. Combining these two sources to make a claim which neither source makes - that the use of WP on Gaza has created an environment impact is textbook WP:SYNTH (Not to mention that the edit restored by User:Richard Nevell includes the sentence "This chemical weapon.'." which is explictly contradicted by the very sources uses, both of which say "WP is NOT a chemical weapon" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source links white phosphorus to environmental damage. As for the description of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, I suggest changing the wording from This chemical weapon causes an environmental catastrophe at the level of the basic elements of the environment to It causes an environmental catastrophe at the level of the basic elements of the environment. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the source in the article, but if you want to add. it, go ahead, attributing it to a claim by the law professor who claimed this, and using similar terminology to what he used , i,e "can have a long term impact" or "could be devastating", rather than stating this as fact.
If you want to claim 'an environmental catastrophe' - you need to find a source that says that, and hopefully something that explains what "at the level of the basic elements of the environment" means. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does famine belong?

[edit]

The famine section has some issues, e.g. the Gaza Strip is experiencing famine is attributed to two opinion pieces, with no attribution.

But taking a step back, is there even a clear connection established by reliable sources? The article says famine is due to destruction of agricultural land, but I don't see that in the current sources. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Food and Agriculture Organization has definitely drawn a connection between food access and the destruction of agricultural land. See this France24 article from earlier this month: Across Gaza, 57 percent of agricultural land has been damaged since the war began, according to a joint assessment published in June by the UN's agriculture and satellite imagery agencies, FAO and UNOSAT. The damage threatens Gaza's food sovereignty, Matieu Henry of the Food and Agriculture Organization told AFP, because 30 percent of the Palestinian territory's food consumption comes from agricultural land. [4] CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdraw. I have realized that before such a move we need consensus on the scope of this article. Without such a consensus, the RM might go in circles. Since no one has either supported or opposed this RM, I'll start a discussion below. (non-admin closure) VR (Please ping on reply) 23:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war → Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip – "Israel-Hamas war" is a broad topic, that covers the October 7, 2023 attack, Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, Israeli incursions in the West Bank etc. The direct parent article for this article is the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as this article only covers the environmental impact from the Israeli invasion and not from any of the other subtopics. Hence the proposed title is more WP:PRECISE. It also makes sense that the environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is very clearly a WP:NOTABLE topic in its own right and deserves its own article. VR (Please ping on reply) 02:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since the previous RM closed just 10 days ago? RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this long discussion with the previous closer (Tpbradbury). Ideally I would have preferred they evaluate arguments for and against using "Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip" in their close, but instead they have suggested I start a new RM.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in May, I started a discussion on a rename (see #Suggested rename above). Based on that, it appeared to me there was consensus so I made the move. You objected and insisted on a formal RM, so OK, we did that. After that was closed, you objected to the close and convinced the original closer to reopen the discussion. That discussion was again closed in a way you didn't like, so you complained to the second closer. And now we're back here 10 days later going over the same ground because you still don't like the result. It's time to drop the WP:STICK. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But those discussions are different. The original discussion was on whether to use "impact" vs "damage". By contrast this discussion is about which the parent article? And you seemed ok/neutral[5] to the parent article being Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (5 other users also either supported or were ok with this suggestion). And it is the second closers idea that new RM would be the best way of deciding consensus on what is the parent article.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should the scope of this article be?

[edit]

In the #Requested move 31 May 2024 there was some discussion on what the scope of this article. From what I can see, we have three options:

  • 1. One article only – and no other articles – that covers the environmental impact across all theaters of the Israel-Hamas war, including Gaza Strip, Israel, Lebanon, Red Sea etc.
  • 2. One article that gives the overview of the environmental impact of each theater of the war. Theaters with a lot of coverage (e.g Gaza Strip) would break into their own subarticles, while leaving a summary behind in the main article. This would be in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • 3. No overview article. Every theater's environmental impact is discussed in a separate article, with all the other theaters linked through the "See also" section.

Currently, it seems this article is #3. There is only content relating to Gaza Strip, and no other theaters. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the title implies the scope of this article is either #1 or #2. One reason for asking is to determine where should we cover things like oil spill caused by Houthi attacks, oil spill caused by IDF attacks, effect of white phosphorus on Lebanese agriculture, release of toxic material in Israel on October 7, 2023.

What do others think should be the scope of this article?VR (Please ping on reply) 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems the best home for the other information you mention. That would treat this as 1, although 1 and 2 are the same at the moment. This article is only 2200 words, there is no need to create a more concise WP:Summary style, although one may emerge as time goes on. CMD (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent thanks very much for starting this conversation :) Currently I feel like the title is a bit misleading, the content of the article is about environmental damage caused in Gaza by the war but the article title is much broader than that. My personal preference would be to make the article title more specific. John Cummings (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings, @Chipmunkdavis, I would prefer #3, as I don't see much of a connection between the environmental impact in the various theatres. And as per John, the article is currently about only Gaza but the title appears to be more holistic. Let's see what others say.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent this sounds good to me, what do you think the title should be? Something like 'Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war in Gaza'? That would fit the naming conventions of other articles I think. John Cummings (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested "Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip" (because parent article is Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip). The exact name can be settled via an RM after the scope is clarified.VR (Please ping on reply) 11:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other Environmental impact of X war articles we have divide by theatre (Vietnam War, war in Afghanistan, Gulf wars, Russian invasion of Ukraine). Of course, these are mostly even shorter than this article (only the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is longer, at just under double this one), but this article isn't very long either. Chemical weapons in World War I is perhaps a more developed similar article, which also does not split by theatre. One of the connections there is the same one as here, it is part of the same war. Keeping potential information together allows readers to have all the context in one place. CMD (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chipmunkdavis I think this has happened because the real life situation is different to the other examples of Wikipedia articles on a similar theme. I think its more important for the article title title to be accurate and reflect reality than conform to a naming convention. There might be a rule for this but I'm not sure where I would find it. John Cummings (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All wars have their differences, that doesn't say anything about this particular topic. The current article title is purely descriptive and already reflects reality if that is the concern. CMD (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with moving this to a title that restricts the scope to Gaza, while still allowing a broader parent article to be made (and/or articles about other theaters), if someone wants to make it. Levivich (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also in favour of that approach. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard Nevell what would be the next step in doing this? Should we just have a discussion under a new heading with a couple of options? John Cummings (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also favor this option. If it were to be implemented (only pending consensus), would we:
  • Keep this article as the broader parent article, and summarize the Gaza theatre, and add other theatres. Then create a new WP:SPINOFF article focused on Gaza and copy this article's content there. Or,
  • Move this article to be focused on Gaza, while creating a new parent article, with other theatres there.
I'd rather do the former.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1252314277"